, OnBehalf of Themselves and theClass They Seek to Represent,No. 08-16645

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

D.C. No.v.2:05-CV-02198-



C

ALIFORNIA

S

TATE

E

MPLOYEES

MCE-KJMA

SSOCIATION

, L

OCAL

1000, S

ERVICE

OPINIONE

MPLOYEES

I

NTERNATIONAL

U

NION

,AFL-CIO-CLC,

Defendant-Appellant,

andS

TEVE

W

ESTLY

, Controller, State of California,

Defendant.



Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Eastern District of CaliforniaMorrison C. England, District Judge, PresidingArgued and SubmittedOctober 9, 2009—San Francisco, CaliforniaFiled December 10, 2010Before: J. Clifford Wallace, David R. Thompson andSidney R. Thomas, Circuit Judges.

19875

Case: 08-16645 12/10/2010 Page: 1 of 43 ID: 7575454 DktEntry: 24-1

Opinion by Judge Thomas;Dissent by Judge Wallace

19876K

NOX

v. C

ALIFORNIA

S

TATE

E

MPLOYEES

A

SSOCIATION

Case: 08-16645 12/10/2010 Page: 2 of 43 ID: 7575454 DktEntry: 24-1

COUNSEL

Jeffrey B. Demain, Altshuler Barzon LLP, San Francisco,California, for the defendant-appellant.W. James Young, National Right to Work Legal DefenseFoundation, Inc., Springfield, Virginia, for the plaintiffs-appellees.

, 475U.S. 292 (1986), in addition to an annual fee notice to mem-bers, to send a second notice when adopting a temporary,mid-term fee increase. Under the circumstances presented bythis case, we conclude that a second notice is not required,and we reverse the judgment of the district court.IACongress has long recognized the “important contributionof the union shop to the system of labor relations.”

Locke v.Karass

, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 798, 803 (2009) (quoting

Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed.

, 431 U.S. 209, 222 (1977)). TheSupreme Court has underscored this Congressional policy byenforcing the right of a union, as the exclusive collective-